Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanical testing of a new plate system for the distal humerus compared to two well-established implants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A biomechanical study was performed to test the hypothesis that a new anatomically preformed, thinner, soft-tissue protecting plate system for distal humeral fractures (Tifix®-hybridplate [HP]) would show comparable results in the quasi-static and dynamic testings compared to two conventional implants: The 3.5-mm reconstruction plate (RP) providing primary stability with normal bone mineral density (BMD), and a multidirectional locking plate (Tifix®-plate [P]) which can be used with poor bone quality.

Methods

The Tifix®-HP was developed by the working group. The biomechanical testing was performed on a C2-fracture-model in 24 synthetic humeri. Three groups, each with eight bone-implant-constructs, were analysed in quasi-static and dynamic tests.

Results

The quasi-static measurements showed that under extension loading both locking plates (Tifix®-P, Tifix®-HP) were significantly stiffer than the reconstruction plate, and that the Tifix®-HP had a significantly lower stiffness than the two other implants under flexion loading. In the dynamic tests the Tifix®-P allowed significantly less fracture motion compared to the Tifix®-HP and the reconstruction plate. In an osteopaenic bone model locking plates failed only under much higher dynamic force than the reconstruction plate. The reconstruction plate and the Tifix®-P always failed through screw loosening, whereas the newly developed Tifix®-HP showed screw loosening in only one third of cases.

Conclusion

The hypothesis that the newly designed plate system showed comparable results in the quasi-static and dynamic tests compared to the conventional implants with a significantly lower implant volume and thickness was confirmed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Parkkari J, Pitkäjärvi T, Pasanen M, Vuori I, Järvinen M (2000) The injury mechanisms of osteoporotic upper extremity fractures among older adults: a controlled study of 287 consecutive patients and their 108 controls. Osteoporos Int 11:822–831

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Popovic D, King GJW (2012) Fragility fractures of the distal humerus: what is the optimal treatment? J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(1):16–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jupiter JB, Morrey BF (1993) Fractures of the distal humerus in the adult. In: Morrey BF (ed) The elbow and its disorders, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, London, pp 328–366

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robinson CM, Hill RMF, Jacobs N, Dall G, Court-Brown CM (2003) Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma 17:38–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Srinivasan K, Agarwal M, Matthews SJ, Giannoudis PV (2005) Fractures of the distal humerus in the elderly: is internal fixation the treatment of choice? Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:222–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonnaire F, Bula P (2010) Distale humeral fractures. Trauma Berufskrankh 12(2 Suppl):96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M, Lill H, Josten C, Schneider E, Linke B (2004) A biomechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma 18:286–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Windolf M, Maza ER, Gueorguiev B, Braunstein V, Schwieger K (2010) Treatment of distal humeral fractures using conventional implants. Biomechanical evaluation of a new implant configuration. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kollias CM, Darcy SP, Reed JG, Rosvold JM, Shrive NG, Hildebrand KA (2010) Distal humerus internal fixation: a biomechanical comparison of 90° and parallel constructs. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ): 39(9):440–444

    Google Scholar 

  10. Penzkofer R, Hungerer S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Augat P (2010) Anatomical plate configuration affects mechanical performance in distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25(10):972–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz A, Oka R, Odell T, Mahar A (2006) Biomechanical comparison of two different periarticular plating systems for stabilization of complex distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech 21:950–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shin SJ, Sohn HS, Do NH (2010) A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intraarticular distal humerus fractures. J Should Elb Surg 19:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frattini M, Soncini G, Corradi M, Panno B, Tocco S, Pogliacomi F (2011) Mid-term results of complex distal humeral fractures. Musculoskelet Surg 95(3):205–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Athwal GS, Hoxie SC, Rispoli DM, Steinmann SP (2009) Precontoured parallel plate fixation of AO/OTA type C distal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23:575–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dunlap JT, Chong AC, Lucas GL, Cooke FW (2008) Structural properties of a novel design of composite analogue humeri models. Ann Biomed Eng 36(11):1922–1926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schuster I (2005) Development of a method to test osteosyntheses in intraarticular distal humeral fractures with a metaphyseal comminution zone in decreased bone mineral density. Dissertation, University of Freiburg, Germany

  17. Morrey BF (1985) The elbow and its disorders. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  18. Claes L, Wolf S, Augat P (2000) Mechanical modification of callus healing. Chirurg 71(9):989–994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schuster I, Korner J, Arzdorf M, Schwieger K, Diederichs G, Linke B (2008) Mechanical comparison in cadaver specimens of three different 90-degree double-plate osteosyntheses for simulated C2-type distal humerus fractures with varying bone densities. J Orthop Trauma 22(2):113–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Siebenlist S, Stöckle U, Lucke M (2009) Problems of osteoporotic fractures of the elbow. Obere Extremität 4:160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nicol A, Berme N, Paul J (1977) A biomechanical analysis of elbow joint function. Joint replacement in the upper limb. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, pp 45–51

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nordin M (2001) Biomechanics of tendons and ligaments. In: Nordin M, Lorenz T (eds) Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 350–356

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rübberdt A, Surke C, Fuchs T, Frerichmann U, Matuszewski L, Vieth V, Raschke MJ (2008) Preformed plate-fixation system for type AO 13C3 distal humerus fractures: clinical experiences and treatment results taking access into account. Unfallchirurg 111(5): 308–322 [Article in German]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Friederikenstift Hospital Hannover, Humboldtstraße 5, 30169, Hannover, Germany

    Christine Voigt

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University Medical-Center Schleswig Holstein, Lübeck, Germany

    Christina Rank, Andreas Unger, Arndt P Schulz, Christian Jürgens & Felix Renken

  3. Laboratory for Biomechanics, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany

    Christine Voigt, Klaus Waizner, Robert Wendlandt & Arndt P Schulz

Authors
  1. Christine Voigt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Rank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Klaus Waizner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Wendlandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Unger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arndt P Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christian Jürgens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Felix Renken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Voigt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Voigt, C., Rank, C., Waizner, K. et al. Biomechanical testing of a new plate system for the distal humerus compared to two well-established implants. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 667–672 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1779-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1779-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation